25J

THE HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS FOR SWAYING,

-HEAVING AND ROLLING- CYLINDERS IN A FREE SURFACE*)
- by

Ir. J. H. VUGTS **)

Summary
For various cross-sections the hydrodynamic coefficients of two-dimensional cylinders are determined by forced oscillation tests
and by theoretical computations. The.purposeof thisstudy is to check the theoretical basis of the computations for all three possible
modes of motion and to establish the influence of section shape in this respect.
Theresults show good agreement for heaving and forswaying, while there is-a fair correspondence for rolling. Apart from deviatitins
due to experimental inaccuracies appreciable differences between theory and experiment only exist for the coefficients- of those terms
hich dissipate energy in sway and roll There viscous effects are distinctly present especially for sharply edged sections in roll
The wave exciting terms in the two-dimensional case are measured and compared to calculations as well. So a complete-set of hydro-
dynamic quantities for the coupled motions of cylinders in beam waves is presented.

I Introduction tian, the latter at relatively high frequencies of motion.

Accepting the basic assumptions the development of
--A solution for the ship motion problem at seis requires
the slender body theory -is mathematically much more
the determination ofthe dynamic equilibrium of forces
rigid. It has confirmed-several characteristics- andshown-
and moments. It is- generally accepted that for the fluid
new lines for the investigations. However, it is ques-
forces the influence of viscosity and surface tension is
tionable whether the results are more correct and it
of minor importance -compared to pressure and wave
does not look very promising for practical purposes
effects. At the present state of knowledge this proposi-
either. The strip theory has been developed by physical
tion has not been disproved by model or full scale
and intuitive reasoning and is much simpler in use.
experiments, at least as far as ship motions are con-
Moreover, it gives better results in the frequency range,
cerned. Possibly the manoeuvring problem is suffering
which is important for the longitudinal mot-ions.
from viscous effects. 1-t has further been supposed that
In the past 15 years most attention has been con
the whole motion problem can be regarded as linear.
centrated upon pitching and heaving. M-uch progress
Again up to the present state of development this -has
has been made by means of combining elementary
-been onflrmed surprisingly, in any-case for engineering
two-dimensional solutions for the hydrodynamic forces
purposes and apart from very special objects. -

in a modified strip theory. For many practical applica-

By these circumstances the determination of the
tions the-matter may be regarded as solved in this way.
hydrodynamic forces acting on the ship's hull forms a
Evidence that the hydrodynamic coefficients calculated
linear boundary value problem in potential theory The
by two-dimensional potential theory are correct is-
superposition principle holds and the actual phenom-
scarce, however, although the ultimate reslts for the
enon can be split up into the sum olharmonic oscilla-
ship and for parts of the ship are in good agreement
tions of the ship in still water and waves coming in on
with experiments [1, 2]. It is acceptable that the theo-
the restrained ship. The two fields can be investigated
retical solution will be confirmed in a wide range by
entirely separately. Considering only the first field the
suitable experiments. As a matter of fact some experi-
problem can be stated as the oscillation ola rigid body,
mental evidence is available. But the performance at
moving with a certain specd in the surface of a heavy,
relatively low and high frequencies of motion and the
ideal fluid. The solution supplies the six transfer func-
influence of an accurate representation of section shape
tions of the ship, which are composed of both rigid
are unsettled details. As a contribution to this matter
body characteristics und hydrodynamic quantities. Un-
a series of experiments was carried out in heaving with
fortunately the solution of this general three-dimen-
cylinders of 7 different cross-sections; see figure 1.
sional problem, including frward -spccd, s not yet
It has to be considered now whether a solution in
possible. -
the- field of the- lateral motions and rolling, which cover
Two theories have been developed to find an ap-
a frequency range from very low to rather high,
proximate solution: the slender body theory and the
depending on the size and type of ship, can be obtained
strip theory. Both- have- limits as to their validity, the
in a way similar to that in heave and pitch. An analytic
former giving better results at low frequencies of mo-
three-dimensional solution of the hydrodynamic prob-
)Rcport 112 S Nthorlands Ship ilcsoarchContrc fl40.
lem for an arbitrary case does not appear to be possible
i Shipbuilding L,boratory Deift Techni,Iogicii Univcrsity. in the near future. Moreover, it was not established
.252
a priori that for these motions the neglect of viscous
and non-linear effects is just as permissible as for the
symmetric heaving. Possibly eddy formation plays a
more important role. For both reasons a theoretical
and experimental investigation of the basic infinitely
long cylinder is ofgreat valuc.Cylinders with 5 different
crosssections have been oscillated in sway and roll and
the measured hydrodynamic coefficients are compared
with those, computed by potential theory. Coupling
terms of sway into roll and vice versa are included.
To complete the picture also the wave exciting forces
and moment on the restrained cylinders have been
obtained by measurement. They are compared with
theoretical results as well. So a complete set of hydro-
dynamic quantities is presented, by which the two-
dimensional case, that is the motion pattern of infinitely
long cylinders in beam waves, can be analysed.
2 Historical development
The subject rolling has an important place in the
literature since 1860. Attention concentrated especially
upon roll damping by determining extinction curves
for free floating models and even for actual ships. The
value of severaFof these tests may be questioned when
they were performed in small basins or at full scale in
docks or harbours. Besides the influence of the induced
swaying and of the position of the centre of gravity i
a certain condition of loading upon the results of the
tests does not seem to have been recognized fully. In
1933 Serat [3] used small cylindrical models for extinc-
tion experiments to study the effect of different forms
and of the position of the centre of gravity on roll
damping more fundamentally. Although he used cylin-
ders in principle he did not imitate two-dimensional
conditions. But in 1937 Baumann [4] did for a large.
circular cylinder. He recognized that added mass,
moment of inertia and damping in roll were zero for
this section, a fact which allowed him to determine the
added mass and damping in sway for his freely floating
model. He only investigated one frequency of motion,
but his results are of a remarkably correct order. Ursell
(1949) [5] calculted the outgoing waves for a forced
rolling motion at very low frequencies by potential
theory. He found that for a well-rounded rectangle of
BIT 2.52 roll damping would vanish. This theoret-
ical result vas experimentally verified by McLeod and
1-Isiek [6]. For the first time now the roll axis was fixed
in space and situated in the water surfice. Their experi-
ments were not fully convincing, but they agreed fairly
well with the predicted results, despite the fact that the
tests were carried out at the natural frequency of the
cylinders, which was not so low that the condition
w -e O of Ursell could simply be considered satisfied.
MeLeod iitl Ilsich on the other lind found tlit the
wave damping only accounted for 20 to 50 per cent. of
the total damping.
In heaving some experiments vcre performed in the
thirties by Dirnpker [7] and Holstein [8]. They imi-
tated two-dimensional conditions for a circle, a wedge
a nd a recta agIe i n a sinn Il ta n k . The forner author
only investigated free oscillations. He determined the
damping decrement, while the increase in natural
period with respect to the period calculated allowed
him to give an indication of the added mass Holstein.
on the other hand, also perforiiied forced oscillations
and measured the progressing waves. His results may
still be useful, although they arc not very accurate and
are possibly influenced by wave reflection.
Further it is interesting to note that Dimpker found
a departure from pure two-dimensional conditions in
forced heaving. For a combination of heave amplitude
and frequency, exceeding a certain limit, a standing
wave system along the length of the cylinder developed.
According to his investigations this is a pure hydro-
dynamic phenomenon, not depending upon section
shape, surface tension or accidental circumstances
during the test.
In 1949 Urscll [9] had also indicated a general way
to come to a theoretical solution of (lie boundary value
problem in two dimensions. Grim [IO, Il] and Tasai
[12, 13] extended this principle from the circular to
elliptic cylinders and Lewis-forms, while Porter [14]
ultimately formulated the solution for heaving of an
arbitrarily shaped cylinder. Now in principle the way
was free to investigate the influence of form, of fre-
quency of motion, and of the coupling effects between
sway and roll in detail. But first the validity of the
theoretical approach had to be established by experi-
ment. Naturally this was first tried for the most simple
case of heaving. The experimental difficulties are very
great, however, and it is not surprising that only a few
experiments of the actual two-dimensional case are
known. Tasai [15] measured the wave heights produced
by forced heaving cylinders. Porter [14] measured the
total vertical force on a heaving circular cylinder and
the pressure in a number of points along the contour.
Paulling and Richardson [16] carried out the most
extensive experiments so far. For fourdifferent sections
the vertical force and the pressure in 4 to 6 locations
was recorded, both its magnitude and phase. Wave
heights were measured as well.
The results of these experiments vere such that the
theoretical prediction was contirmedsubstantially. Thus
for heaving only some details remain to be investigated,
as discussed in the introduction.
Now time has certainly come to direct the attention
again to rolling and.swaying. The situation is quite dif-
 253

fcrcnt with respect to these motions. Theoretical predic- a51 = hydrodynamic mass or mass moment of inertia
tions for some Lewis-frms have been presented by in the. i-mode of motion,
Tasai [:13], but as far as the author knows not a single a,j = mass coupling coefficient in the i-equation by
experimental check in these fields is available. And it motion in thej-mode,
has already been stated in the introduction that the b5 = damping coefficient against motion in the i-
validity of the theory cannot automatically be extended mode,
to these cases. lt is especially questioned whether the b = damping coupling coefficient in the i-equation
flow condition when rolling can be described ade- by motion in the j-mode,
quately by potential theory. Cil hydrostatic restoring coefficient against a dis-
placement in the i-direction,
As experimental procedure two methods are possible. Cli = hydrostatic coupling coefficient in the i-equation
When the cylinder has aforced oscillation in one mode by a displacement in the j-direction,
of motion, either the pressure along the cylinder con- Y = horizontal wave force (Y) when freely floating
tour or the force required to sustain the motion can in waves or external force (Y0,0) when forcedly
be measured. Pressure measurement has the advantage oscillated in still water,
that it allows the most direct and most detailed com- z = ditto in the vertical direction,
parison with theory. On the other hand itrequires high. K = ditto, moment about O.
accuracy, complicated equipment and extensive anal- The coefficients c1, and c53 can by definition be deter-
ysis mined by pure hydrostatics.
The force measurement involves the prcssre integra- By simple reasoning the equations (3.1) can be
tion over the body surface, so only the overall result simplified greatly. The horizontal displacement is not
can be compared with theoretical predictions. opposed by any restoring force, so e = C:i = C#, = O.
In DeIft experience has been gained with the latter The vertical motion is symmetric with respect to the
way of testing and an advanced measuring technique z-axis and. canot produce any lateral forces or mo-
has been developed [li]. Therefore the force measure- ments; therefore = b, = c, = a,s = b#: C = O.
ment as to amplitude and phase has been accepted to A static heel j does not generate a horizontal force,
obtain the experimental results. or c, = O. But due tO differences in the immersed and
emerged wedge when heeling about a fixed axis in
3 The mathematical model for motions in two space, in general C:# O. Then the mathematical
dimensions model is reduced to

Let Or: be a coordinate system whichisfixedinspace. (m + a,)j+ bj' + ay +b,,4' =Y

The r-axis is in the water surface, directed to the (I + bb + c+ aj + b,j' = K
starboard side of the section. The z-axis is vertical,
positive downwards The origin O is the intersection (in + a2) +b2 +cz+ a24,i/. + + c,b +
of the centreline of the sectionand the Waterline. =Z
Suppose now that the centre of gravity G of the
cylinder is situated in O. The most general way of Heave does not influence the coupled. sway-roll motion,
describing the motion of a linear system is a set of as is seen by (3.2), but the reverse need not be true:
three coupled. equations of motion. In. a formal nota- see (3.3). It will be clear, however, that the 4' and
tion this set can be put down as y-components 'in the z-equation may be expected to
be extremely small with respect to the z-components.
(ni + a1)i +by;.j (J _f. + 'sz + Cy:Z + The experimental results will also show this clearly.
In a potential flow the sway and roll problem is asym-
+ a) + bq+ cb = Y.
metric with respect to the z-axis.and these contributions
(ni + a.)z + b.: + C: + Ci; + b2q+ C:q,(l + theoretically even vanish. Thus heaving becomes an
(3.1) uncoupled, one degree of freedom motion. For the
= z.
time being the equation (3.3) is retained, however.
(i + a) + b4/ + c/ + + + c,.,y + The cylinders are harmonically oscillated in one of
the three modes of motion
+ (1.:'+ 1)4 + = K.
y = Y0$)t, z = 4' = O
Where
in = mass of the cylinder sectioti, z = z0sinwl; A = y = O
= mass moment of inertia about G, 4' = 4'05mn0)1 z = y = O,
while Y, Z and K are measu red simultaneously i ft - The restoring coefficient in (3.5) is equal tomg . GM =
amplitude and phase. ,,zg(OG - 0M) = .i;ig .OG - nig OAt; the latter term,
In principle the cylinders were oscillated in roll about (,,,q.OM) is nothing else than c, so this con-
thc point G, coinciding, with 0. But for the rectangle tribution is negative when M is below the watet
it was very impractical to change the mechanical set-up surface and positive when M is above O.
for the three draughts investigated. Thereforethe centre
of gravity and the point of rotation remained at the
highest position and G was no longer situated in O for 4 .A theoretical solution of the hydrodynamic problem
BIT = 4 and 8. It, is preferable to define the hydro-
The hydrodynamic problem arising from the motion of
dynamic quantities a, and C.j always with respect
an infinitely long cylinder in the free surface of'an ideal
to the Ovz-axes, because they have nothing to do with
fluid is uniquely deteriruned and solvable. In an ideal
rigid body characteristics. On the other 'hand body
fluid, being initially at rest, a velocity potential must
motions are most logically introduced as translations
exist satisfying Laplace's equation in two dimensions
of and rotations about the centre of gravity. Therefore
and the respective initial and boundary, conditions.
the equations (3.2) and (3.3) are rewritten for aGyz-
When linearization is considered permissible the har-
system with 0G O, but with a1 and, Cj defined monic motion of the cylindr becomes of primary im-
for motion of the point 0. This is obtained by trans-. portance. In that case only the boundary conditions
forming. for the velocity potential remain when the transient
phenomena have died out. Summarizing, the velocity
YG = Yo -. (J)o
.potential must satisfy the following requirements in
G 0 two dimensions
Laplace's equation;
the linearized free. surface condition;
ZG = Z0 the radiation condition, which states that a wave
KG = K0+0G (hor. forces.). train of constant amplitude progresses from. the
cylinder to infinity;
Working this out and dropping the index G for motions.
every disturbance in the fluid must vanish at in-
ad exciting forces results in.
finite depth;
(m + a)i +.b)j' + {.a + j. a} + the normal component of the fluid velocity at the
(3.4) cylinder' is equal to the same component of the
= Yw } cylinder velocity, both taken in the nican position
{I +a+0Ga,.+0G2 a,,+0Ga#}+ of the cylinder.

+.{b+ 0G b.,,+OG2 The underlying assumptions are

(3.5)
+ {c + 0G g)4 + {a#+OG a}$ + the fluid is inviscid, incompressible and irrota
tional;
= the surface tension may be neglected;
.0" +a:)+ b::+c:zz+(az,+0Gaz,}+ the fluid domain is infinitely large;
the motion amplitude is small with respect to the.
+ { b +. b.,}. + c4,4 + aj + (3.6) dimensions of the section and. the generated waves
+b:yi = Zw have amplitudes which are small with respect to
. J
their length.
Regarding these equations the following remarks are
made: It is well known that these conditions are approximat-
- 0G is positive when G is below 0, negative when G ely fulfilled in many problems associated with ship
is above the water surface. motions, so that (lie theoretical solution is of significant
- The right hand sides are expressed as wave forces, value both qualitatively and quantitatively.. Perhaps
which (being hydrodynamic quantities) arc also some reserve is justified regarding the rolling motion
determined with respect to the Oyz-system; so K as far as viscous efThcts and small motion amplitudes
is the wave moment about 0. are concerned. The results of the experiments will have
- When oscillating the moment to sustain the motion to show to what extent this invalidates the theoretical
is directly measured about G, so the right hand side corn putat ions.
of (3.5) is to be replaced by K0, only. The solution has been obtained according to Ursell's
 255

'nethod [9]. The generalization of this method to the
waying and rolling of arbitrarily shaped cylinders has
been given by De Jong [18] in Delit. It was program-
med in Algol-60 by the Computer Department of the
Technological University at Deift, while the calcul-
tions vere carried out on their TR-4 computer.
5 The experiments
5.1 The general set-up
The experiments were done in the main basin of the
Delit Shipbuilding Laboratory. Its dimensions are
142 m length and 4.20 m width. As the draughts of the
cylinders and the set-up for the various modes of mo-
(ion were different the water depth varied between
1.80 m and 2.25 ni. About halfway its length a very
stiff bridge was constructed across the tank. At this
bridge the motion mechanism was built up. At both
nds of the tank beaches damped out most of the
generated waves. A wave height meter of the resistance
type measured the outgoing waves at a distance of
10 m from the centre line of the model.
The cylinders occupied the whole width of the tank;
the clearance between the end bulkheads and the tank
walls being only some millimeters. The cylinders were
constructed of wood with transverse and longitudinal
stiffening. The principal data are summarized in table 1.
The cross-sections are shown in figure 1. The trans-
formation coefficients (rom the unit circle are given
in the appendix.
Measurements were done for three amplitudes of mo-
tion over a frequency range ranging from w = 1 rad/sec
to 12 rad/sec. For heave and sway the amplitudes were
0.01, 0.02 and 0.03 m; for roll 0.05, 0.10 and 0.20
radians (2.86, 5.73 and 11.46 deg.).
5.2 The heave experiments
All of the seven sections were tested in heaving. The
sinusoidal motion was directly produced by a vertical
oscillator.
By a method of harmonic analysis the in-phase and
quadrature component of the first harmonic part of
the force signal were obtained. This measuring tech-
nique has been described in [2] and [17]. The outgoing
waves were directly recorded on a UV-recorder and
read manually.
From equation (3.6) it is easily derived that the heave
coefficients are obtained by the following relations

T -profUe BOx4Omm 0.30 re

a5 - Z050 000S
w
C - CZ0
nl
'! stiffening
E
o
o = + Z0500sinc
rozo

5.3 The sway experiments

Fig. I. The cross-section of the
cylinders
Except for the horizontal force now also the moment
about the centre of gravity is required. Considering
potential flow the problem is asymmetric with respect
to the centre plane, so that no vertical forces are
developed. To check this point vertical forces have
been measured as well.
A harmonic analysis was applied separately to the
signal from each dynamometer, just as in heaving,

Table 1. Principal data of cylindcrs

Cylinders

circle rectangle triangle 2 Lewis-forms

LcngthL 4.19m 4.19m 4.19m 4.19m

Breadth B 0.30 m 0.40 m 0.3464 m 0.30 m
Draught T 0.15 ni 0.20-0.10--0.05 m 0.30 m 0.15 m
D/Tratio 2 2-4-8 1.155 2
Area coefficient 0.9992-0.9983-0.9966 0.50 :z/4
Displacement 148.1 kgf 335.2L167.6_83.8 kgf 217.7 kgf 148.1 kgf
256

and the ultimate results were combined to obtain th however, to obtain the required quantities for rolling
required forces and the moment about the point of about the intersection of centreline and waterline. The
intersection of the centreline and the waterline; Just equations are presented below. Just as in swaying it
as in heaing the wave height signal was written on a was not accepted a priori that vertical forces would be
U V-recorder. The two Lewis-forms were not inves- absent. The two Lewis-forms were not tested in
tigated in sway. rolling either.
The equations (14), (3.5) and (3.6) show that the The coefficients can be obtained with th aid of
required coefficients can be derived from the measure- equation (3.4), (3.5) and (16) as follows
ments as follows
K'jq'j cos CK - (c + 0Gng.)0
Yoc 3COS Cy
W
2
--
(1%). - ,fl
W'.0
+ OGs,-0Ga-0G2
'j sin C)
b, =
b=+ SiflC

K0
a. - COS C
+0G'b'0Gby#_0G2b;.y
(5.2)
yosc acos ev
K00 sinc, a, = 0Ga, (5.3)
b, = +
W).0
0Gb, (1)2
,

Z00 cos e, sin s

=+ (i)4)
0G b,
2
W

0SIfl C Z0 Cose7 - C&

b.. + I 0G a.y
W)'a J
W2&

For the circle, the triangle and the rectangle at BIT = 2 5m

is 0G = O and the coefficients are directly computed
from the measured force and moment. For the rec-
tangle at BIT = 4 and 8 the correction terms 0Ga,,
and 0Gb,, play an important role. The two terms in
each coefficient are Opposite in sign, thus making a,
and b,the small diflrence of two rather large quan-
tities Therefore the experimental accuracy of the
coupling coefficients in these cases will not be very
great..
5.4 TIte roll experiments
It was to be expected that the measurements when
rolling were. difficult. As the resulting hydrodynamic
forces and momentsare small theroll amplitude should
not be too small. lt was decided to se 0.05; 0.10 and
20 radians. These angles also cover an important
range in actual rolling. Since it is not unlikely that the
hydrodynamicquantities will depend on roll amplitude,
it is of importance that the motion isa purely sinusoidal
rotation about a fixed axis to eliminate uncertainties
resulting from a non-harmonic motiOn. lt was further
considered that the rolling should be produced by a
pure rolling moment without residuary forces, which
would interfere with the measurement of the hydro-
dynamic forces by rolling. The roll axis s situated in
the water surface, except for the rectangular sections
with BIT = 4 and 8. The results can be modified,
0G b:,
W4a
For the circle, the triangle and the rectangle at BIT = 2
is 0G = Oand the computations are straightforward.
But when 0G O here even more than with swaying
the experimental accuracy may be questionable. Many
correction terms appear, which are subject to experi-
mental errors in themselves. Since the measurements of
a,, and b,, are reliable, the a,, and b>. are computed
by equations (5.3). For the other quantities it is pref-
erable to calculate the theoretical coefficients about G
instead of O and to compare those directly to the
measurements. The values about G are given by (corn.
pare equation (3.5))
(a)G = (t + (t4 +3 (t i2 a =
= a+20Ga,+0G2.a.,
(b)G = b + b, + ?j. b, b, =
(5;4)
= b+20Gb,+0G2b1.,
(aZ)G =
(b.,j,)(; b:,j, + 0G b.)
For the measurement of the. wave heights produced by
rolling, a different technique was tried. The wave
height signal was now fed into the harmonic analyser
just as the force signals. For the wave signal this

method failed, howcvcr. At that moment it was not
ssible to switch ovcr to a rccordcr and thereforc no
..ieasured wave heights are presented for (h is case.
5.5 The !;:easzrcInc',,i of tt'a ve forces
The wave forces and (lie wave moment were recorded
on a UV-recorder. The recordings were analysed
ma nu a l'y.
The incoming waves were masurcd 30 ni in front
of the models This distance could not be made shorter
as the reflection against the model of the starting waves
inflUenced the recording so soon that for the longer
waves no time was left to obtain a stationary picture
The wave moment lias to be corrected for the
distance 0G as well. The right hand side of equation
(3.5), being the wave moment about G, is measured as
a whole. So that for the case of the BIT = 4 and 8
rectangle sections the measured K is to be compared
to (lie theoretical vale
(K = K%.+0GYW (5.5)
}. and Z,,, are always measured directly.
lt has to be noted that (5.5) is not an algebraic but
a'vector-equation. Due account has to be taken of the
phase relations of the respective quantities.
56 Discussion of i/le experi!nenla! accuracy
In a complex test as this it is hardly possible to analyse
the separate sources of possible errors and to estimate
their magnitude. it is possible, however, to obtain an
idea of the overall accuracy by the results of some
special tests.
lii the first place the circular cylinder was rolled.
The output of all dynamometers should be zero now,
except for the inertia of the body itself. In the second
place some oscillation experiments were exactly
cpeated in air. This was obtained by lowering the
water level so that nothing was changed. It will be
understood that in this way only sway and roll cxperi
ments arc possible, for the buoyancy is indispensable
to balance the weight for vertical force measurements.
The only non-zero result now should be the mass or
mass moment of inertia of the cylinder itself.
The rolling circle in water produced little output
indeed. The results are presented in figures 6.1 and 6.2.
The total error in dampingcoefflcient b and coupling
coefficient b is very small; compare the results for
the other sections in figures 6.3 through 6.10. In the
low frequency range the mass coeflicients a and a,
show distinctly that they are in error. A very small
absolute error in the measured force or moment causes
large deviations in the coefficients in this range. But
257
the error in a for the middle and higher frequencies
is still fairly large. The supposed added moment of
inertia is negative and this must probably be attributed
to experimental errors or to a systematic mistake in the
determination of the body inertia. The latter was deter-
mined dynamically by allowing the cylinder to roll
freely in air when attached to a spring and measuring
the period. Before doing so the spring-apparatus was
calibrated by known weights. If this method should
turn out not to be accurate enough (in this case in-
dicating too large inertia) the a for all sections should
be too small. Indeed this is the general picture. It can-
not be decided conclusively, however, although the
rolling test in air (see below) produces another indica-
tion in this respect.
The coupling coefficient a for the rolling circle
deviates rather much from zero as well. But this was
due to a weak point in the connection of the cylinder
axis to the bridge across the tank. The construction
hinged slightly, thus producing a small sway notion
of the cylinder. The horizontal force measured is fully
accounted for by the mass inertia force maw2, when
a is a horizontal displacement of 0.5 x l0 m for
4a = 0.05 and of 2x iO m for /'a = 0.20. As the
circle was the first cylinder tested in rolling this point
was detected soon and eliminated by considerable
strengthening of the weak element. So for the other
sections this error inay will be much smaller.
By these results it will also be clear that the coupling
coefficients of the rectangle with BIT = 4 will be very
inaccurate because they have the same order of mag-
nitude as the measurements in the circle case.
The rolling test in air was done with the rectangle
BIT = 4. Only the moment to sustain the oscillation
was measured. The body inertia measured in this test
was indeed some four per cent lower than that being
determined With the spring apparatus. This is of the
same order as a for the circle rolling in water;
figure 6.1. lt supports the idea that the determination
of I is not very accurate, as suggested above, and that
thereby the measured a, will be too small for all sec-
tions. Of course it is impracticable to determine the
inertia of all sections by an oscillation test in air, so
that this discrepancy has to be accepted.
The measured b4, in air was of the same order as
that of (lie circle; see figure 6.1.
In swaying the test in air was performed with the
rectangle BIT = 8. The inertia force measured, com-
pared to the ideal inertia force lflYaW2, was slightly
smaller for low frequencies and slightly higher for high
frequencies. The deviation at the low frequency side
258
Table il. Estimated crrors in sway coellicients.
H Max. exp. error
0.140 at w = 1.75,. increasing nearly linearly from zero at w
b. /IB- < 0.025
Aa- IB
at w I = 0.85, decreasing towards both sides
.
A \! 2g 2g
< 0.043 ' .nearly constant
AB
< 0.009 at w = 1.75, increasing nearly linearly from zero at w
turns out to be completely within the absolute;mea-
suring accuracy, but at the high frequency side it is
meaningful (about + IO per cent).
The in-phase moment about the centre of gravity
was less satisfactry, especially for frequencies above
co = 7 sec'. This suggests that the centre of gravity
of the ballasted model was not exactly in the required
position and/or that the torsional rigidity of the
cylinder itself allowed for deformations and unpropor-
tional loading of the gauges. This must make the a#,
(at least for the rectangle with BIT = 8) rather in-
accurate.
By the latter experiment in air an estimate could be
made of the overall error in the various sway coeffi-
cients. lt is presented in table 11.
Of course, strictly speaking, these numbers onlyapply
to the rectangle BIT = 8. But it does not seem too
crude an assumptin to suppose that the order of 'appendix in table A-I. Within the two-parameter Lewis
magnitude is also valid for the other sections. By doing
so the results of the sway experiments, presented in
figures 4.1 'through 4.8, are very satisfactory. The.
measured ay and for the circle for instance (which
should, be zero just, as a, and b,) are practically all
within this error range. Since in general little scatter
was experienced and' the measurements could be repro-
duced nicely as well the experimental accuracy has 'no
doubt been' considerable. In the opinion of the 'author
the results approach the limits of experimental possibi-
lities for complicated tests of this type.
6 Discussion of the results
6.1 For/zeaving
The non-dimensional added mass and damping coef-
ficients in heaving are presented in figures 3.1 through
3.5.
The experimental points have directly been derived
from the measurements without smoothing a force
curve through the measured points. There is little
Remarks
= 0.40
.
' ' '
= 30
scatter and the consistency of the experiments is very
satisfactory. Only in the low frequency 'range'
(coj(B/2g) < 0.50) deviations appear, especially in
the added mass. This is due to' experimental inaccura-
cies. No non-linear effects with the amplitude of oscil-
lation could be detected, not even for the triangle.
The agreement with the theoretical computations is
also good. The lines drawn represent calculations ac-
cording tothe best section fit, the dotted lines.according
to the corresponding Lewis form. In general the experi-
mental values arc very slightly higher at the high
frequency side. With this in mind 'all coefficients for
all sections are systematically more closely predicted
with the aid of the actual section fit than by a Lewis
form. This can best be demonstrated with figures 3.1,
3.2 and 3.3. The sections form a three parameter
family; the transformation coefficients are given in the
form they are identical. The 'dotted lines in figures 3.2
and 3.3 do correspond with the drawn ines in fig. 3.1.
The differences, shown by the computations when all
the coefficients are taken into' account, are fully con-
firmed by the experiments.
The differences between the two theoretical calcula-
tions are generally not of much importance for the
sections tested. This proves that for heaving the
breadth-draught ratio and area coefficient are the most
important parameters; at least for the cross-sections
considered.
62 For st'aying
The added mass and damping in sway, together with
the two coupling coefficients into roll are presented in
figures 4.1 through 4.8. The measurement of vertical
forces to determine the coupling coefficients a, and
b, of sway into heave showed a large scatter and the
results all fell within the experimental accuracy. There-
fore no significance can be attached to them and a:,
and b, 'should be taken equal to zero.
 259

The rneasurng points showcd itL1c scatter and no 63 For the generated waves
ystematic discrepancy between the various amplitudes The amplitudes of the outgoing waves in swaying and
of oscillation, except for the triangle (figures 4.3 and heaving are shown in figures 5.1 through 5.7. As said
4.4). A smooth force curve has been drawn through in section 5.4 no measurements of the waves in rolling
the measured points, and this curve was further used are prcsent
for the determination of the cocrncients. Therefore the The same,points as raised in the discussion of swaying
measured coefficients do determine a continuous curve and heaving apply here. The wave measurements are
and only one symbol is used in the graphs. This way consistent with the force measurements. The only ex-
of working was preferable because the roll coupling - ception is figure 5.2, where the measured waves seem
coefficients are rather sensitive and it is logical to to be closer to the Lewis prediction while the damping
smooth the experimental data at the origin. coefficient obtained from force measurement is closer
In swaying experimental errors in the low-frequency to the actual prediction. An explanation cannot be
range are hardly present. Only the mass coefficients given. Probably it must be attributed to an error in
show some deviations below w/(B/2g) = 0.25. The the calibration of the wave height meter in this test.
coupling coefficients into roll for the circle (figure 4.2) The scatter at the high frequencies in heaving with the
should be zero, while for the rectangle BIT = 4 (figure rectangle BIT = 8 (figure 5.7) is caused by the fact that
4.7) they are very small and will be very unreliable. the cylinder starts slamming at the water surface here.
These facts have already been discussed in the sections It is noteworthy that the scale for tjy0 in the upper
.6 and 5.3. half of the figures is twice that for C/; in the lower
In general experiments and computations correspond half. Swaying generates higher waves than heaving
very satisfactorily. The agreement in added mass and above a certain frequency. Below that frequency hardly
mass coupling coefficients is good. The b, and b, do any waves and damping appear in horizontal motion.
show the influence of viscosity, however. In this respect
the results for the three rectangles and for the triangle 6.4 For rolling
arc convincing. In ligure 4.5 the theoretical and experi- The coefficients, derived from the rolling tests are
mental bry coincide for BIT = 8 and get more oIT for presented in figures 6.1 through 6.10. As in swaying
BIT = 4 and 2 at the higher frequencies. It can be the vertical force measurements did not lead to a value
understood that the flow pattern about the deeper of a1 and different from zero.
immersed sections suffers more from separation than Again as in swaying a smooth force curve has been
about the shallow one. Difference with sway amplitude drawn through the measuring points and further data
cannot yet be noted. lt culminates in a still stronger have been taken from this curve. If necessary three
eddy formation at the sharp edge of the triangle, which curves for the various amplitudes of motion were used.
also increases with sway amplitude (ligure 4.3). The The experimental results for the circle have been dis-
b, shows the same tendencies. From the above it may cussed in section 5.6.
tentatively be concluded that apparently the generated The rectangle BIT = 2 shows satisfactory measure-
eddy can roughly be considered as an additional ments a, and b, are in full agreement with the
phenomenon which hardLy disturbs the pressure dis- computations. In b the effect of viscosity can be
tribution over the section given by potential theory noted, while a suffers from errors which has been
and thus predicts the added mass and mass coupling discussed in section 5.6 as well. The data fit the trend,
coefficients correctly. however. The triangle (figures 6.3 and 6.4) shows
Just as in heaving the experiments show a slight exactly the same picture, apart from the fact that the
tendency to produce somewhat higher values for added influence of viscosity is much more pronounced, as
mass and damping than the theory at the high frequen- can be expected. Of course, the relative importance of
cies. Probably this is a small systematic error at the the viscous effects in rolling will be much larger than
high frequencies of motion, where high demands are in swaying, because the wave damping is of a smaller
imposed on the structural set-up. order. There is a large difference between the various
Also in swaying the actual section fit improves the amplitudes of motion in and The differences
theoretical prediction. Generally the difference between increase approximately linearly with 4, but the starting
the two computations is not great, however. The point is not necessarily the theoretical line. These facts
actual section contour obtains somewhat more im- suggest that the roll coefficients b and b, can be
portance for a correct prediction of the coupling represented by
coefficients.
b,,(w,40) = {b#$w)}heor + ib,,(w) + c1(o) &
The two sections forming a three parameter family (6.1)
with the circle were not tested in sway. by4,(W,lJa) = {byqs((0)}theor + E.b(w) + c2(w) .
260
The value of the /'s and oF c and c2 dillers from scc
lion to section. For sccLons not cdgcd too sharp!y
apparently only e1 difFers appreciably from zero. This
is the case e.g. with the rectangle BIT = 2.
rS in Svaying the eddy formation does not seem to
dtstrov ilic pressure distribution over the sectiOn, since
and arc satislictoriIy predicted by potcntitI
theory.
: COI1t)IriSOfl between the actual section fit and
thc Lewis form is not 'cII possible, since the experi-
mental results are not accurate enotigh in this respect.
The rciiii ni ng t'o sect ions : the recta nglcs with
B,T = 4 and S present difficulties. Since the centre of
rotation in these cases was not situated ir. the waterline
the coefficients had to be corrected for the distance 0G
as described in section 5.4. The results for a and
are shown in figures 6.7 and 6.9 It is clear that the
influence of the position of G on the coefficients is
very large. In the damping coefficients a large contri-
bution of viscosity is noted but they fit the trends fully.
That the effect of viscosity is more pronounced than
for the rectangle BIT = 2 is understandable because
rolling takes place about a point well above the water-
line. No explanation can be given for the fact that in
figure 6.7 /a = 0.05 gives higher experimental values for
b than = 0.10 or0.20, while infgurc 6.9 the mutual
order is as might be expected. The measurements of a
for both sect ions are very low and evidently greatly
unreliable. A direct explanation is not available, but
reasons may b found in the sections 5.4and 5.6.
The computed values of 2,j/B/Ja for thc rectangl
and th triangle aie presented in figure 7; the circle
does not generate any waves. The upper half of this
figure shows a strong dependence on DIT-ratio. Ursell
[5], derived analytically for the very low frequencies
that a well rounded rectangle of BIT = 2.52 would not
generate waves in rolling and consequently have no dam-
ping. To check this some additional computations were
made for the samesection at various draughts. They are
given in figure 8. The following range of B/T-ratios
was covered: 1-2-2.50-3.20-4-8 and 16, while five
frequencies of motion were selected: w ..j(B/2g) =
0.50-0.75-1.00-1.25 and 1.50. Vanishing roll damping
is found for all frequencies somewhere between BIT =
2.50 and 4.00. The actual point is dependent on fre-
quency. Below this point the roll damping of deep and
narrow sections increases sharply at low frequencies.
Above this point the shallow and broad sections offer
great advantage at the high frequencies of motion.
6.5 For rite wave forces and i/ic ii'arc Inomeilt
The theoretical computation of exciting forces on fixed
bodies is generally based on the so-called Froude-
Krylov hypothesis, which states that the presence of
the body in no way disturbs the incident wave system.
Since the potential of this wave system is known the
pressure distribution over the body surface is also
known and' the forces required can be obtained by
integration. lt is clear that this view can only provide
a rather rough approximation of the actual situation.
In fact the whole diffraction problem of the waves
about the body has to be solved before a realistic
pressure distribution can be obtained. This is a very
difficult task and an approximate solution has been
sought by applying correction terms to the forces
obtained by t he FroudcK rylov hypothesis for the
relative motion between the body and the water
particles. lt has been shown several times that these
corrections are quite large and that this procedure
leads to reasonable results for the exciting force and
moment in head waves.
Haskind found relations between the exciting forces
and the far field velocity potential for forced oscillation
in calm water. Thus an actual solution of the diffrac-
tion problem can be avoided and the exciting forces
are simply related to the damping coefficients. Newman
[19] elaborated this further and found for two-dimen-
sional sections in beam waves the following expressions
Ya=a[ui_b,y]}
i
= (6.2)
= c[-2 b]i
Non-dimensionahized by the respective hydrostatic
force and moment the results of these calculations are
shown in figures 9.1 through 10.5. The computations
have been performed with the damping coefficients fdr
the actual section fit.
On the other hand Motora [20] used the method of
applying correction terms to the FroudcKrylov force.
Following his procedure the dotted lines in the graphs
are obtained. Again the nmss and damping coefficients
for the actual section fit have been used. No way is
available for a computation of the moment according
to these lines. How important the correction terms are
is shown in figure 9.1 for the circle. The calculation by
the FroudcK rylov hypothesis (including Smith-effect)
is far off, especially in the horizontal force. When even
the Smith-effect in the incoming wave is not taken into
account the calculation has become purely static and
a line at the point 1.00 over the whole frequency range
will result. The mass correction term doubles the hori-
zontal force in the very long waves for the circle and
even triples it for the triangle (figure 9.5).
In general the computations according to Newman
 261

do fit the experimental results better. They arc much 7 Conclusions

simpler and imicli moie straightforward as vclI.
The added mass and damping coefficient in heaving
The measurements of the moments arc presented in
can be computed accurately by potential theory.
fiurcs 10.1 through 10.5, together with the Newman-
This statement is not only valid for the practically
curves. The computations for thc rectangle BIT = 2
important middle frequency range, but also for
agree well with the cxperimcnts, thosc for the triangle
very high frequencies of motion. At the low fre-
satisfactorily. That the circle does not exactlyexpericnce
quency side the experiments fail to check the
a zero moment must be attributed to viscous cllccts
theory. The influence of viscosity is negligible,
and to the same experimental errors as in rolling. For
perhaps with the exception of large bulbshaped
the rectangle BIT = 4 and 8 the moment has to be
sections where separation may occur at the upper-
computed according to equation (5.5). This is a vector
side of the bulb. .
equation, but supposing that the phase dilicrence of
The difference in the calculations for an actual
K0. and Y. with the wave elevation at O is equal it
section fit and foran approximate Lewis-form is
reduces to a simple algebraic equation. Indications
small bit it is fully confirmed by the experiments.
for this supposition arc found in the fact that both are
proportional to the wave slope, so that in the long In swaying the experimental results agree well
with the computations both for added mass and
wave approximation the phases are indeed identical,
shown in
damping and for the coupling terms into roll. It
and in the measurements of and. ,
may be concluded that the potential theory gives
figures 11.2 through 11.5. In non-dimensional form
a reliable prediction ofall the hydrodynamic coef-
the moment about G is then computed from
ficients involvcd For relatively sharply edged sec-
(K,) (K0)0 +0G 12A tions viscous effects are clearly perceptible, but
, (6 3)
'f1,ogB3k0 '/12gB3k0 B B2 g,lk(0 they do not invalidate the practical usefulness of
the theory at all. At the edges separation occurs,
where O= 0.10 m for B/T= 4and 0G = 0.15m which means an energy loss due to eddy forma-
for BiT = 8 The results in figures 10.3 and 10.4 show
tion. This increass the values for the coefficients
a quite reasonable agreement with experiment.
of thoc terms which represent the dissipation of
The measured phase angles and c, are
energy, namely b,j' and b5'. The pressure dis-
presented in figures I 1.1. through II .5. Calculations of
tribution over the contour is apparently hardly
C) and ; according to Motora'smcthodare presented and ay are still predicted cor-
affected, so that
as well. The measurements show much scatter and arc
rectly. When the edges arc very sharp the strength
rather inaccurate because of the fact that the incoming
of the generated eddy may increase with the sway
waves had to be recorded at a distance of 30m in front
amplitude, thus making b, and b, in fact non-
of the model. The general trends arc in agreement,
linear quantities. However, the effect of lineariza-
however.
tion will not be serious. The wave damping is the.
lt is noteworthy that the recording of the transverse
largest contribution in the total coefficients;. the
force and of the moment was not simply harmonic,
viscous contribution increases them with about
contrary to that of the vertical force. A typical example
10 to 40 per cent. Of course the higher the frequen-
is reproduced in figure 2. Apparently the higher order cy the larger the deviation and since the actual
contributions do not significantly change themagnitude
swaying is a low frequency motion it is not
of these quantities, since the agreement with linear
believed that the influence of viscosity is practi-
computation is good.
cally of much importance.
R.cngIe BIT 2 VB O
For rolling the same comment as for swaying
holds in principle. Since the wave damping part
for the sectins considered is an order smaller
than for swaying the viscous effects obtain much
more importance, however. Here as well nearly the
whole influence is restricted to the energy dis-
sipating ternis, that is to the coefficients b and
b.
The theoretical computations for the actual sec-
tion fit always better agree with the experiments
than for the corresponding Lewis-frm. Generally
Fig. 2. Typical recording of wavecxciting forces the differences are not enormous, but they may
262
obtain importance for the coupling cthcts of sway
and roll. Since it is hard io judge about tite mag-
flitLide of these coupling effects beforehand it is
recommeded that a better approximation of the
section contour than a Lewis-form is used fr
theoretical predictions. When a computer pro-
gram is present it requires little extra effort to
do so.
5. The wave exciting forces are well predicted by both
theoretical methods. The Newman-method, which
includes the diffraction of the incoming waves, is
preferred because it isfundamentally more straight-
forward and much simpler. lt also gives a correct
theoretical prediction of the wave moment. A dis-
advantage is that it does not present phase angles.
6,. The calculation of the horizontal force and mo-
ment according to the FroudeKrylov hypothesis
and the lg wave approximation largely under-
estimates the actual wave force and nioment.
The Smith-effect causes an important decrease in
the exciting forces and moment, even for the fairly
long waves.
Since viscous effects will mainly be due to separa-
tion and eddy formation and not to skin friction
it is believed that scale effects are. of minor im-
portance for oscillation tests to determine the
coefficients, or for ship motion tests.. At the size
of the models, used in thc.experiments, also surface
tension will only have a negligible influence.
References
GERRITSMA, J. and SMITH, W. E., Full-scale destroyer mo-
tion measurements. Journal of Ship Research, vol. Il, no. I,
March 1967. p. l-8. (Also Report 142 of the Shipbuilding
Laboratory, Technological University Delft, March 1966).
GERRITSMA, J. and BEUKELMAN, W., The distribution of the
hydrodynamic forces on a heaving, and pitching ship model
in still water. Report 61 S of'the Ncthcrlands:Ship Research
Centre TNO, September 1964.
SERAT. M. E., Effect of form on roll. Transactions of the
SNAME, vol. 41, 1933, p. 160-180.
BAUMANN, H., Schlingerversuch mit einem Kreiszylinder.
Schiffbau, Schiffahrt und Hafcnbau, vol. 38, 1937, p. 371-
376.
URSELL, F., On the rolling motion of cylinders in the free
surface of a fluid. Quarterly Journal of Mech. and Applied
Math, 2, 1949, p. 335-353.
McLEon, W. C. and I'lsmii, T., Experimental investigation
of Ursclls theory on wavemaking by a rolling cylinder.
Schiffstechnik, Bd. IO. lIeft 50, 1963, p I7-22
DtMPKER, A., Ober schwingcnde Krper an der Oberflche
des Wassers. Verft-Rccdercj-1-lafcn IS, lIeft 2, lS Januar
1934, p. 15-19.
HOLSTEIN, H., Untersuchungen an einem Tauchschwingun-
gen ausfhrenden Quader. Wcrft-Rcedcrcj-Hafen, 17, Heft
23, I Dezember 1936, p 385-389.
The inlluencc of B/T-ritio is large. Especially roll
damping nearly vanishes in the importa ni p'-
tical B/7range. The added moment of inertia is
rather depending on BIT as well.
IO. The iiiathematical model, presented in 'section 3,
will probably be very useful for actual computa-
tions of ship motions in beam waves. All of the
coefficients can be obtained by computation ac-
cording to potential theory when the section con-
tour is known, 'but four of them will have to be
corrected for viscous effects: h, b. h and h,,.
The correction to the first one is no doubt the most
important, while that to the last one will be negli-
gible in several cases; the two coupling coefficients
can be taken equal.
Il. The coupling effects of sway into roll and vice
versa are mixed up With the influence of the verti-
cal position of the. centre of gravity.. Therefore
they may be very different for various cases.
8 Acknowledgement
For those who are familiar with experiments in ship
hydrodynamics it will be clear that this programme
could not have been carried' out without the assistance
of many. There is hardly any member of the personnel
of the Shipbuilding Laboratory who has not attributed
to it in some way or another.
The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to
all of them.
URSELL, F., On the heaving motion of a circular cylinder
on the surface of a fluid. Quarterly Journal of Mech. and'
Applied Math., vol. 2, 1949, p. 218-231.
GRIM, O., Berechnung der durch Schwingungen eines
Schiffskrpers erzeugten hydrodynamischen Krfte. Jahr
buch der Schiffbautcchnischcn Gesellschaft 1953. p. 277-299.
Il. GRI1bI, O., Dic hydrodynamischen Krfte beim Roilversuch.
Schilfstcchnik, Bd. 3, 1955/1956, p. 147.
TASAI, F., On the damping force and added mass of ships
heaving and pitching. Rep. of Research Inst. for Applied
Mech., Kuyushu University, vol. VU, no. 26, 1959.
TASAr, F., Hydrodynaniic force and moment produced by
swaying and rolling oscillation of cylinders on the free sur-
fase. Rep. of Research Inst. for Applied Mech., Kyushu
University, vol. IX, no. 35, 1961.
PORTaR, W. R., Pressure distribution, added mass and
damping coefficients for cylinders 'oscillating in a free sur-
face. University of California, Inst. of Eng. Research.
Berkeley, July' 1960.
TASM, F., Measurement of the wave height produced by
the forced heaving of the cylinders. Rep, of Research Inst.
for Appl. Mccli., Kyushii University, vol. \'lll, no. 29. 1960.
16 PAULINO, J. R. and RICHARDSON, R. K., Measurement of
pressures,forcesand,radiatjng waves for cylinders oscillating
in a free surface. University of California, Inst. of Eng.
Research, ilerkeley, June 1962.
17. ZuNniawotu', l-1. J. and BIaThNHEK, M.. Oscillator-tech.
niques at (lie Shipbuilding Laboratory. Report 11 1 of the
 263

Shipbuilding Laboratory. Technological University Dclft,
November 1963.
l8. J0NG, B. DE, Bcrekcning van dc llydrodynanlischc cofl-
cienten van oscillcrcndc cylinders. Report 174 of the Ship-
building Laboratory, Technological University Delft, March
1967..
NIWMAN, J. N., The exciting forces on fixed bodiesin waves.
Journal of Ship Research, vo!.. 6, no. 3, December 1962,
p. 10-17.
MOTORA, S., Stripwisc calculation of hydrodynamic force.s
dueto beam waves Journal of Ship Research, vo!. 8, no. 1,
June 1964, p. 1-9.

APPENDIX

The transformation coefficients

The tanslormation coefficients for all of the seven sections arc presented in the tables below.

Table A-I. Three-parameter family Table A-III. Other sections as actual section fit

Circle Lewis form Lewis form Rectangle

(hg. 12) (fig. 3.3) Triangle
B/T=2 B/T=4 B/T=8
BIT 2 2 2
/1 T/4 r/4 n/4 0 +0.306944 +0.562879 -0.333428
a1 0 -0.036500 -1-0.036500 a3 -0.160702 -0.142628 -0.107010 +0.148725
a5 O -4-004028 +0.004028
a, 0 -0.0227ll -032234 +0.009924
a, O +0.036500 -0.036500 a7 +0.014776 +0.007352 -0.003475 +0.016740
a, - - -l0.003070:
Table A-Il. Other sections as Lewis forms
a,, - - - +0.005562
a,, - - - +0.001575
Rectangle a,, - - - +0.002743
Triangle a,, - - - +0.001163,
BIT = 2 J/.T = 4 BIT = 8 a,, - - - +0.001733

BIT 2 4 8 1.155
fi 09992 0.9983 9966 0.50
a1 O +0.292531 +0.547939 -0.314152
a, -0.139447 -0.122406 -0.086768 +0.172370
264

ii
o
PA

0:11 .0

' Y2g

Q i. 0.01 m
o 002m
o 003m

bfW
pAY 29

_
i:
0.

:.i.J
P PII
Q 02 050 075 100 25 150

-wYi-
Fig. 3.1. Added mass and darnpingcocfficient in heaving
-
S 200
 265

t::
t

o
075 1,00 125 o
1.50 1.75 200
Trw.
92g
25 050 075 100 125 1.50 1.75 200

125
O z,.0.OIm 2
011.2 1. 8
O O.02m
O 003m
100

pAT 2g
pAT 2g

1h
p,
.5

t 4
o
0.

050 075 100

0
125 1,50 175 2.00 025 050 075 100 125 150 __175 2MO
rw IB
wvi.
Fig. 3.2. Added mass-and damping,cocfficicnt in heaving Fig. 3.4. Added mass-and' damping'coefficient.in heaving

2.

2.
\V
Q"
pA pA

i':: oO.
o

050 u- D --
0
0.25 050 075 1.00 1.25 150 1.75 200
o"
.. - 00

125 125
I
.0 i..O.O1 in
o O02m
o 003m
100 100

b..lrr
;AVZ5 pA Y29

f
075

OSO
TE 075

050

o
0.2

0 1 if -II 0 25 050 075 100 125 150 175 200

o

o
0.25 OSO 0.75 100 1,25 150

-wYi
t75 2.03

Fig. 3.3. Added massand dampingcocflicicnt in heaving Fig. 3.5. Added mass and damping coefficient in heaving,
LOO

500

0
pA Su
pA
.0
300

o
200

1.00-----

2 11 151ll,l... 0.25 050 075 1.00 I 25 1 50 1.75 200

2.
tOy..l
0 2.0
.2.O00n

r
0.0o pA 72g
7
o0
---00 000
s
i',:
05
o

2 5 .61012 S l ..
i lb o
wvi 1.75 200
wni-
Fig. 4.1. Added mass and damping coefficient in swaying
Fig. 4.3. Added mass and damping coefficient in swaying

0
01

pAS 1
pAD
1

05
r:
2
00

05000510 .515 .5' o

_'.uuu000000 060
.50
irr 1.75 200

5.0
010

?tII
pAD 12g
s
-070 000 0 O03m

0
0 000000 o
-0 2 00000
030 D0oa:_ ....
DOD
-0
02 .00510 .515 rr .52 01.0
flc nn
- --wvirr
175 200

Fig. 4.2. Coupling coefficients of sway into roll

Fig. 4.4. Coupling coefficients of sway into roll
 267

2.

H
h

-------.,.-
, -'
00 p
I0o5_-__ -
-6
o o

050
ThD
00
00000 O

---.- -
o
O.lOo 07S
0 25 0.50 0.75 1 00 1.25 1.50

-uvifW
1.75 2.00 0.25 OSO 1.00 1.25 1.50

w
rr 1.75 2.(

1.25
0. BIT 2
O

1,00 O
00 o
. B
ai
bMfr 0'
o
0AV29 . . O pAB
o
07S

050 T
000
-L
L.1
o
025 0.05

o 0.100 0.25 0.50 OIS 1.00 t2S ISO 1.75 aI o

o 025 ,050, 0.75 IDO 1.25 1.50 1.75 200
w
-. wv.
Fig. 4.5k Added mass.anddamping coefficient in swaying Fig. 4.7. Coupling coefficients of sway into roll

001

:
O

pAB
.tL o
pAB
010

-OEs t
00 0 -

- 020 005

0.25 0.1OQ
0.25 OIS
OSO 1.00 1.25 1.50

-w rr 175 2.1

020
0 25 050 075 loo 125 150 175 200
irr
_u_ Yi

_p-.
o
oo
-z

_I
pAD
L
o

_o 00000 0.05

050 075 100 125 150

- wyirr
175 2.00 075 1.25 150
0.25 0.50 1.00 175 21

-wYk
Fig. 4.6. Coupling coefflcients of sway;into roll Fig. 4.8. Coupling coefficientsof sway into roll.
268

O y.O,Olm
O O.O2m
O 003m

*
t

0
0 Dy
025 flcO 075 flfl ,n ,,

O i..0.OIm
O 002m
D 003m
1.00

L
0

075 _____ . .

PIO
0 025 OcA 075 inn ic in i,.
-wyli.
Fig. 5.1. Wave amplitude ratio in swaying and heaving

:' H

50

0 0,25 050 0.75 1.00 1.25' 1.50 1.75 2.0

wv

Fig. 5.2. Wave amplitude ratio In heaving

O z..O.OIm
O 002m
O 003m

0 0.25 050 0.75 1.00 125 t co i 75 7 o

Fig. 5.3. Wave amplitude ratIo in heaving

 269

O y..0.Olm O y.. 001m

o 002 m o 002m
D 003m O 003m
200

y.
ESO

I00

250

1.
o
0
J,?
025

O Z..00lm
: :
050 070 1.00 1.25 1.50

wY

O
1.75 2l

1.25
0

0 z.. 001 m
O
0 25

002m
0.50 075 1.00 1.25 1.50
irr
yi.
1.75 2.0

1.00
D 003m

I ;.

025
025

o
o
.50 I. 2.00 1.50 1.75 2.00
irr
wY-i.
Fig. 5.4. Wave amplitude ratio in swaying and heaving Fig. 5.6. Wave amplitude ratio in swaying and heaving

2.
O y.001m O y.001m
002m
________. O
O
D 003m
I I

k
2.00

ISO

l.00
O

050 050

O.
o
O
1.50 b
irr 1.75 2.00 o 0.50 075 1.00 1.25 1.50
Irr I iS 20
Ith
yi
o

,.,
12
O z..0.OIm
o o o
002m
Io 1.00
O
D 003m / o
o
/ o
Z. /0

i::
0
O
o
0.25
D
o.
o
o
rr 075 1.00 125
- tir
1.50 1.7$ 2.00

yi.
Fig. 5.5. Wavc amplitude ratio n swaying and heaving Fig. 5.7. Wave amplitude ratio in swaying and heaving
LIU

02

V
02

0.1
-C)
o,. * $,. 0.05 o
J
o 0.10
o a 0.20

o *
o
t::: 1i
o
o o 005
V
oe
005
D
pou o
o 75 1.25 ISO
__wIr
1.011 1.75 200
a - '2g
-010
1.2 1.50 1.75 2.00 02
O , 0,05
o 0.10
D 0.20
.- .-.- o
o
c
0.050 -- -
D 00
2g o O
0.025 i i: o 000 O
u 0*0
oc 70o000000000
O
O
0(OflO00C00O 005 -D -O20 O

o
0.025e o
025 050 0.75 1.00 1.25 t75
-wv
1.50 2 115 1.50

- " vi
rr 1.75 205

Fig. 6.1. Added mass momcnt of inertia and damping Fig. 6.3. Added mass moment of inertia and damping
*.uciiiici,, iii gull coefficient in roll

-e'-,
o

ut
pA
0.1
o
_o
,.
0
D
O.OS
0.10
0;20
ut
pA
0.1 M

Ii
O

O
i: o i:
o
o O
o V
COO 0.00
0000O RO
005

-0.10
0O D.
C. ODD000000IIUE o

1,50 1.75 2.00

-050

-0.60
.111 00 1.25 150 175 200

o
o0OO'0000000d000c o c o

005 Q...______.
0.1 a
b,.
pA
0,10
pA ij
300 o
O
o
o
0.15
i:: D
0o.Qo0C2.&o
o o,. o.o
o 0 0.10
220e o o 0.20
025 0.50 075 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.01
OhO
urn, u Q - 1.25 1.50 1.75 200
-w
Fig. 6.2. Coupling coefficients of roll into sway Fig. 6.4. Coupling coefficients of roll into sway
 271

0125 0.525

0,100 0.100
a..
i

0025
i::
0.025
o
;-t_
o.
D
or o
n
o

o
o 0
o 050 05 1,00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 0 025 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 5.50 175 2 00

w
Ir-
- wi
0125 0.525
o s.. 0.05
o 0.10 m Io s.. 0.05
o ,020 0.0; 020
o too 0100
C
b...lrr
0075 0
o
t::: 0050 o

0025 0025
:
o
L0JjJr88888 8 -'
025 050 075 1.00 1.25 1.50 175 2.00 0.25 050 075 1.00 1.25
rr
1.50

-wvi
1.75 2.

Fig. 6.5: Added mass moment of inertia and damping Fig. 6.7. Added mass moment of inertia and damping
coefflcient in roll coefficient in roll

o 0.55

-005
.!zi
0.io
'fl
O

-- ---
o -010
A9 pAS
-010
.-..' D 0.20

:11 i
o,
ooO
.

i:
o
D
o ?; !i-

-02 0. o-D

00
-010
0--0 025 050 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 175 2.00 0.50 0.75 1.00 5Th ISO 1.15 200
lr-
_wvi
ois
o .. 0:05
o 0.10 ; 0.20
005 0.10

pAS 2g -O,, pAS 5j

oo0 t: .
-
._.it:: - __o__

00_00000
-02 005

025 050 075 1.00 525 1.50 1.75 200 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 150 1.75 .. 200
- WY3I

Fig. 6.6. Coupling coefficients of roll into sway Fig. 6.8. Coupling coefficients of roll into sway
2/2

0.150 0.50

0 125
-- -.1
0.'0
0i 2 C,
\ BI,
-

i
o

i::
o
- t::
*
0050
o
OOO
D 0.10
o
o
0.025 D
D
o,.o.os o
0.25 050
r- 0.75 loO
'-H--..-
72
'--- -.
,bo,tO'1 0.10
0.20
o
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1. 0 1.75 2.00
D.

0.100
F fo ..0.0S 0.'0
o 0.10 2C
Lo 0.20 BI,
0.
t
_2 -. _,
D
D
D
,/_
o-.---

.
O
o
0.20

o
0.25
800000
0.50 075 1.00 1.25
0 O 0.10

1.50 1.75 2.00 o

0.25 0.50 075 1.00 1.75 200
7.25
lr-
1.50

- wvii-

Fig. 6.9. Added mass moment of inertia and damping Fig. 7. Wave amplitude ratio in rolling
coefficient in roll

0.15

-- 0-q 050
w'Q:W
0.10
88 - TI

-Sit
pAD
o
o &00
0.3
.---
D
005 o 0.2
o
o u 0.l
o
O
005 o
n
-'r
10 12 16
B

-0.10
0.50 075 1.00 1.25 150 1.15 2.O0
0.150

7
OIS

010

pAD 12g
005 1.00

/AP
0.050 -

-005 0.025
1.50 050

010 o
025 050 .75 1.00 25 .50 12 iL 16
if
-wyi. --r B

Fig. 6.10. Coupling coefficients of roll into sway Fig. 8. Added mass moment of inertia and damping
coefficient in roll vs. B/T-ratio
 273

250

200
Y. Y.
eOAk pgAI

t.;: t.

050

O 0
050 075 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 .0 025 050 0.75 tOO 125 1.50 1.75 2.0 o
-

075
- Newman
-- Motora
.1n
1.00

0.75
-- - Newman
Motora

2. I pl .gd.d n... z..

3. PgBC.
dn.p..g w
o so 050

025 025

o
0 025 050 075 100 125 150 175 0 025 050 0.75 .1.00 - 1.25 1.50 175
- wvnr
O 0 0.2 03 0.4 0.5 06 0.7
I
0,9.
I
0.9
I
1.0 lt 0
I
0.1
I
02
I
03
I I
os
I
06
I

07
I
08
I I
.1.0
i

Fig. 9.!. Horizontal and vertical wave exciting forces Fig. 9.3. Horizontal.and vertical wave exciting forces

.
200 200
Y. Y.
p9Ak
-
pgAk L .

150
--9-.3-----.

0 025 0.50' 075 1.00- 1.25 1.50 I.7S 2.0 0.25 0.75
O 0.50 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 20 o
2

.5.00

- -
-- Newman
-- Motora
0.75
ii
z.

0.50

025
0.25

-
1
O
050

-wv
0.25 0.75 1.00 1.25 100 1.75 o 0.25 OSO 0.75. 1.00 1.25 1.50 1,75

j02 -
j_
0.3'
I. I j_ I I I
tI, I _I_ I-L I I I I I I

.if
.1 .5 0.6 1.0
.1 U. U.J .4 0.5 06 0.7 0,9 09 1.0 1.1

Fig. 9.2. l-lorizotal and vcrtical waveexcitihg forces Fig. 9.4. Horizontal and vertical wave exciting forces
ff
274

2.0 I

IIu
Ye
1.5 t J

pAk
-
- Newni%
O meuSur.d
ebmt G.
o

t:
00 -A- - o
0 0.25 0.50 .75 1.00 1.25 9.50 9.75

I' -
trr
0 02S 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0: n n.I n,I --
u
I.
.. -------
I
tj uo
I
U.B 0.7
I
OB
I
0.9
-I
9.0 1.1
i

,yi
I.
Fig. 10.3. Wave exciting moment
Newman
-- Motora
o
z.
Poe C.
05
2 1
':
c.
02

o
0.25 0.50 075 1.00 1.25 1.50 .75
'w
_-_wy.
I J I I I :I_ I- I.- I

0 0.25 0,50 075 1.00 I 75

Fig. 9.5. Horizontal and vertical wave exciting.forces 9.25 ISO 0
w

Fig. 10.4. Wave exciting moment

U
2

t: o 'i

0
0.25
00

0.50
00
0.75
9
9.00 1.25 .1.50 1.75 K,
3. V.
_wyii kC
' O
Newman
I I I .12
0' nl n
J
I I I J I

Fig. 10.1. Wave exciting moment 2.51

:P0:0
2
.1

1 I 1.

1.0

Z\NiN.wm00 05

o
0 025 0.50 0.75 1.00 1. 5 9.50 I7S

0 025 050 0 75 1.00 9.25 1.50 I 'S a n nii n,

I
n,n.......___
I I I I 1
.1
i
OB
-

0: 1.0
i I
1.1

Fig. 12. Wave exciting moment

Fig. 10.5. Wave exciting moment
 275

1U rj1

90 90
Is
t Q
o
'..
--O Hotoro
80. J.
w
O C
L _.....-----e--
00
o

L. o
-- -------& go. .--- -----4- . o-___,L.o

0 -o 80o0 O
o
O 0.25 0.50 ois loo .1.25 1.50 0.25 0.50 0.75 100 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0

-. wIn
wyi. lTg-

_1 _l_ I I I I
.7 08. 09 1. Fig. 11.2. Phase angles of the exciting forces and moment

Fig. 11.1. Phase angles of the exciting forces

180

go.
o --
I

O
I

Motora

L
.
- .0.O_1
o 8 . .
O
e.

90
_f:b_;_._O_

180!
0 0.25 0.50 o 0.75 1.00 .1.25 1.50 1.75

w
-'w
I I I I I I -I
0. 0.8 0.7 .8 1. 1.

Fig. 11.3. Phase anglesof the exciting forces and moment

au

00 0t0
leo.
.2 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0

Fig liI.4., Phase anglesof the excitingforcesandmoment

-e -- Motora
t,
u:.
__S_o,- -- 0
jO
.-

o
__!oi o
-1__
0
-r
0 0.25 0.'0 0.75 1.00 125 1.50 1.75

.wIn
I I I I I I I i
a'. 0.2 0.3 01. 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.o 1.1

Fig. 11.5. Phase angles of the exciting forces andmomeu

 LIST OF SYMBOLS

A Area of cylinder section

B Breadth oa section at the waterline.
G Cntre of gravity of a section
i Polar mass moment of inertia of a cylinder per unit length about G
K External moment about O
K0 Moment about G as a result of oscillation
Wave excitingmoment about O
L Length of the cylinder
M Transverse metacentre of a section
O Origin of coordinate system; intersection of centre line of section
with waterline
T Draught ofa section at the centre line
Y External horizontal force
Y0,. Horizontal force as a result of oscillatiOn
HOrizontal wave exciting force
Z External vertical force
Z0 Vertical force as a result of oscillation
Vertical Wave exciting force
a1, a3, ...Transfrmation coefficients
a, Hydrodynamicmass or massmoment of inertia in the -mode of motion
a11 Mass couplingcoeflicient in the i-force (moment) equation by motion
in the j-mode
b,, Damping coefficient against motion in the i- mode
b,1 Damping coupling coefficient in the -force (moment) equation by
motion in the j-mode
e,, Hydrostatic restoring coefficient against a displacement in the
i-direction
C1j Hydrostatic coupling coefficient jn the i-force (moment) equation by
a displacement in the j-direction
g Acceleration of gravity
w2
k = - Wave number
g
nI:QA Mass of the cylinder section
yz. Coordinatesystem fixed inspace; the origin is point O, Ozis vertically
downwards, Oy to starboard
Sway amplitude
z Heave amplitude
Phase angle of K0, With respect to 4,
Phase angle of Y0, with respct to y
Phase angle of Z0 with respect to z
Phase angle of K with respect to wave elevation at O
Phase angle of Y,. with respect to wave elevation at O
Phase angle of Z,, with respect to wave elevation at O
Wave amplitude
Specific mass of water
4, RoIl angle .

Roll amplitude
w Frequency of motion or wave frequency

note: Subscript a indicates amplitude (e.g. Ka etc)